Boy, you sure put all of us in our places! Are you the “that’s gotta hurt” guy of the of the blog world? (That’s a Seinfeld reference, if you didn’t know.)

Conversation on divergent points of view is always valuable. Must every conversation result in a changed opinion in order for it to have value? What a ridiculous premise.

Perhaps you shouldn’t bother wasting your time reading conversational threads. I’d hate for you to spend your entire life feeling dirty.

Do psychic powers exist? I don’t think they do, but that’s because for decades all sorts of tests have been run, and when they are done correctly there is no indication that anyone has any sort of psychic ability at all.

Asking for a citation for a statement like this is absurd. Here’s why. I’m sure Phil has come across many well done studies that have failed to show evidence of psychic powers in his lifetime, but I doubt he’s kept a running list. I’m also guessing he’s busy, and doesn’t want to waste a couple of hours tracking them all down to satisfy a few people who like to express doubt about things, but are to lazy to track down the information themselves. So why don’t you get off your behind, and take the time to inform yourself about the subject before unleashing gems like This thread makes one lose one’s faith in science.

That you’re all going to believe or disbelieve the same thing you did at the start of the conversation. Time and effort well spent. I feel dirty for having read most of it.

You began your first post with a lame cheap shot at the posters here. Amazing started off by making ridiculous false assumptions about posters here, and then accused skeptics of being in it for the money. So spare us the whining.

No need to throw hundreds of words at the issue. Just cite a few tests please, or we will quite reasonably assume that you can’t.

Shane was kind enough to do this. So what do you do? You change the subject.

If you have honest questions or doubts, and you express them in a polite manner, people will be polite back. If you act like a pompous idiot, we’ll have a little fun.

“But, as a scientist, I would expect to see those results independently reproduced and then peer-reviewed to ensure the research was conducted properly. After that, I would consider psychic abilities scientifically valid. “

What complete and total hogwash!

First of all, don’t tell us the Randi test isn’t acceptable but then refuse to provide reasons because “you don’t feel like it”. I’m just going to take your word for it? Back up your claim or don’t bother to make it. You took the time to write the rest of the evasive drivel you wrote, why not take the time to expand on the only point you make that is of any interest to this conversation? So unless you can give your “whole host of reasons”, you may as well not bother making the statement.

1. Let’s say someone passed the Randi test, then would everyone reading this (a)immediately, forever and irrevocably start believing in PSI phenomena, or (b)turn around and start second guessing the testing procedures, claim “fraud,” or ascribe the results to luck? The question being: How probative would a Randi test actually be in the minds of the readers here? Are people so trapped in their dogma that they would doubt the results of their own test?

Classic. Look at what you did. You pre-supposed a scenario, invented an unsupported response, and then had the gall to criticize the response YOU created! Unreal. To actually answer your question from the perspective of a skeptic, I would answer this way: I would treat the results the same way I would treat the results of ANY scientific study. The Randi challenge is set up to be performed using the principals of the scientific method. If someone were to pass the test, I would then consider the possibility of psychic abilities to be real, and I would gladly see the money handed over to the person who passed the test. But, as a scientist, I would expect to see those results independently and then peer-reviewed to ensure the research was conducted properly. After that, I would consider psychic abilities scientifically valid. You know, that’s the way science works.

This is a fully moot point however, as so far this has never come close to happening, not in Randi’s challenge nor in any other truly scientific study. You’d think if this stuff were real, that wouldn’t be the case. But as I’ve heard before, psychics just don’t test well.

2. If the PSI effect is small and variable, as some say, then there would seem to be much better ways to test for small and variable phenomena than a Randi test.

Well, the problem with that statement is that it’s a supposition made only by supporters of psychic abilities. Science doesn’t need to accept that supposition. Science needs only to test a claim in a scientific manner on its merits alone. The problem with what you are saying is simply that one could then go and adjust the testing criteria in varying degrees until it matches up with an already demonstrated result. That is not science. That’s the exact opposite of science. That’s starting with the the answer and then adjusting the questions so they match the answer. That’s how religion works… not how science works.

Having reviewed your comments, JEdward, I find your argument horribly weak.

Several of you are completely missing the point regarding the “burden of proof.” Shane went so far as to apologize for posting some references by saying:

“Lastly I must apologies (sic) to my fellow skeptics because I know the burden of proof is on the woo heads but I’ve posted these citations because the woo heads seem to think they don’t exist.”

This entirely misses the point and is, therefore, wrong.

Let me rephrase the statement that we were trying to discuss, and modify it a bit:

“Do cougars exist in the North Carolina mountains? I don’t think they do, but that’s because for decades all sorts of wildlife surveys have been conducted, and when they are conducted correctly there is no indication that any cougar exists in the North Carolina mountains at all.”

Now, if you read that statement, and asked the author to provide you references to those wildlife surveys, you wouldn’t view it as an acceptable answer for the author to tell you that the burden of proof of showing the existence of cougars is on you, and they are not at all obliged to provide references to any of the surveys. You weren’t talking about the existence of cougars in the first place – you were talking about the existence of the surveys. And if the author called you a woo head, that wouldn’t be helpful either.

At least Shane provided a few references. Of course, one of them involves animals (Woof Woof), another is particularly interesting because it is the highly controversial Milton/Wiseman stuff which isn’t really a “test,” but there is no point in disecting each of them here.

And as a final point the Randi thing isn’t acceptable for a whole host of reasons which, frankly, I don’t have the time or desire to go into here, but I’ll say two quick things about it:

1. Let’s say someone passed the Randi test, then would everyone reading this (a)immediately, forever and irrevocably start believing in PSI phenomena, or (b)turn around and start second guessing the testing procedures, claim “fraud,” or ascribe the results to luck? The question being: How probative would a Randi test actually be in the minds of the readers here? Are people so trapped in their dogma that they would doubt the results of their own test?

2. If the PSI effect is small and variable, as some say, then there would seem to be much better ways to test for small and variable phenomena than a Randi test.

Signing off now….

To say that science hasn’t taken the subject seriously is even more bunk than the possibility that psychic powers exist. I can allow for the possibility that psychic powers exist, but to pretend that science has ignored the subject is pure hogwash. It might even qualify as impure hogwash.

But damn it you wisened up and closed ranks and you are safe again. From the woo.

Man you people are fuc*in nuts. It’s like a cult with it’s own dogma. Close up your ranks and make sure the woo doesn’t get you. You have no idea how bizzare this looks from outside your ranks. Woo. Wow. I will leave you to whatever it is that this is.

Well ok, if you insist. Here are 4 for starters…

1. O’Keeffe, C. & Wiseman, R. (2005). Testing alleged mediumship: Methods and results. The British Journal of Psychology, 96(2), 165-179.

2. Wiseman, R. & Greening, E. (2002). The mind machine: A mass participation experiment into the possible existence of extrasensory perception. The British Journal of Psychology, 93, 487-499.

3.Milton, J. & Wiseman, R. (1999). Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 387-391.

4. Wiseman, R., Smith, M., Milton, J. (1998). Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the ‘psychic pet’ phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 453-462.

Why isn’t the Randi thig acceptable? There isn’t a more rigorous or fair test around or is that the problem?

Lastly I must apologies to my fellow skeptics because I know the burden of proof is on the woo heads but I’ve posted these citations because the woo heads seem to think they don’t exist. Obviously they will attempt to discredit any citation but the fact is they do exist and that is all they were asking for.

This is quite black and white.

You can either provide cites to the “tests” (all sorts of them, by the way) that have been “correctly” done over “decades” that back up the statements in the original post or you can’t.

No need to throw hundreds of words at the issue.

Just cite a few tests please, or we will quite reasonably assume that you can’t.

And yes, I meant exactly what I said in the previous sentence – especially the “faith” part.
OK, I get it now. You meant “faith” faith. I thought meant Faith Hill.

The proposition here is plain, and it is an assertion of historical fact that is amenable to support and citation – Namely, that there have been “tests” run over a period of at last twenty years that have been “properly” done, and all of them have yielded no support for psychic phenomena.

You’re right. You win. Nobody has ever taken the time to study this in a scientific manner. Scientists are too close minded to ever consider the possibility of psychic powers. We’re all just repeating something some lie the Amazing Randi is purported to have said once. If only we had some means to look up the truth for ourselves? Some tool that would allow the common man to see if these studies really exist or not? Ah well, a man can dream!

@Amazing
You, as several others here, don’t seem to understand something. The statement you just made is not based on fact, it is based on the cursory superficial idea you came up with after you read what you deemed “enough information” to have decided on what reality is. You are not citing specifics of historical scientific investigation. You are assuming you know all of the scientific information that is out there.

Zing! Nailed again! Man I can’t catch a break today. I was assuming that I knew all the scientific information out there. But I guess I’m just an idiot. I keep using this interweb thing, but I can only find the “scientific” information that refutes it.

Right now there is a group of doctors who are performing actual scientific research into life after death/out of body experiences where the results will conclusively show a result one way or the other… Why can’t they have more tests like that?

Wow. Finally, for the first time ever, there are some people willing actually put psychic phenomena to the test! I can’t believe it took so long. And when it turns out there’s nothing, certain people will once again pretend that it never happened, or come up with reasons why it was unscientific.

But guess what? These “skeptics” are making MONEY off this topic. Off of you. They don’t care if scientific information is found or not found. They care about sensationalism and the bottom line, money.

I’m going to quit my job and become a debunker! There’s soooo much money to be made in not conning people out of their money!

“I don’t think they do, but that’s because for decades all sorts of tests have been run, and when they are done correctly there is no indication that anyone has any sort of psychic ability at all.”

Using the “All Sorts of Tests” method has been useful in the past. I know many major breakthroughs have been made using this method. We should incorporate it more into our scientific process as often as possible. Also, the test result of “any sort of” is a great testing method. Hopefully they are using the “any sort of” method with the LHC tests that are being performed. I just hope they “are done correctly”, based on, er, whatever it is they base it on. You know what? I don’t really care. I just want to know the results! Camon, give me a quick sentence on what I should think about it so I can file it away as reality.

And concerning the wonderful million dollars, screw that. Think about it. A magician (The Great Randi) comes along and says he’s putting up a million dollars if someone can do something. You don’t think that’s a “trick” in itself? It’s for hype, a gimmick. You know how much airplay Randi got out of the Uri Geller debunking? But more so, who cares? Right now there is a group of doctors who are performing actual scientific research into life after death/out of body experiences where the results will conclusively show a result one way or the other.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2980578/Scientists-study-out-of-body-experiences.html

Why can’t they have more tests like that? It’s because of the giggle factor that people like these “skeptics” are creating. But guess what? These “skeptics” are making MONEY off this topic. Off of you. They don’t care if scientific information is found or not found. They care about sensationalism and the bottom line, money. So the more you are “in their camp” the more they love it.

(Quick disclaimer: I really don’t know the specifics of the million dollars so it’s unfair for me to just call it a trick I suppose. However, in the context in which it was created, it seems to me, in my opinion, to have been a stunt that a man who made his living off of keeping his name in the public and appeared on the Johnny Carson show many times, created in order to stay in the limelight. It also is so similar to what the famous magician Harry Houdini did in his life, and that it just makes me go, hmmmm)

You, as several others here, don’t seem to understand something. The statement you just made is not based on fact, it is based on the cursory superficial idea you came up with after you read what you deemed “enough information” to have decided on what reality is. You are not citing specifics of historical scientific investigation. You are assuming you know all of the scientific information that is out there. To cite a magazine that is designed to entertain people with a skeptical leaning is absurd.

So many people seem to choose to make definite statements on complex subjects because it puts them in a position of power and authority. Just like most of you are doing now. It’s not a simple answer. Even though your entertainment magazine panders to your desire to feel secure about reality and to have a strong position to speak from, it is not a replacement for scientific process. That magazine is a collection of people’s OPINIONS after they investigated as much as they chose to, about subjects that are more complex than can be sufficiently described in several paragraphs in a magazine.

To ignore anomalies in reality or ascribe them to “nuts” who refuse to see your reality is what keeps science in its neat and tidy space. History has shown that is what has kept scientists from moving forward. Sometimes only when mavericks have spoken out about anomalies that don’t fit the wonderful secure picture that is presented as “the picture of reality” has science moved forward in leaps and bounds.

Who’s nuts? People that want to cling to their concept of reality because of what they read in a magazine? People who are sure there is psychic evidence out there without scientific evidence? Or people that leave the door open because there hasn’t yet been enough scientific evidence either way? To claim it is one way or the other without SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is nuts. Your claims that there isn’t true scientific evidence is more correct than not, however there is more CLEAR evidence of anomaly than there is of no evidence at all. But to just blurt out with closed eyes that something doesn’t exist because a magazine said so is a scary thing for many intelligent people to have to witness.

And yes, I meant exactly what I said in the previous sentence – especially the “faith” part.

There are over 100 posts on this thread, many of which are directed at MachineElf, but almost all of which wildly miss the point that MachineElf made.

Seems like he was referring to the following text, which I’ll annotate:

[F]or decades [i.e., for at least twenty years] all sorts of tests [i.e., a wide variety of tests, presumably involving guessing cards, remote viewing, precognitive abilities, etc.] have been run, and when they are done correctly [i.e., there is a large body of "tests" out there, some of which have been done "correctly" and some of which have been done "incorrectly"] there is no indication that anyone has any sort of psychic ability at all [i.e., only "incorrectly" done tests have yielded results that tend to show the existence of "psychic" ability.]

Now, it is proper for someone who puts forth a proposition that is based upon factual assertions to be called upon to support that proposition by providing those underlying facts. A proponent who refuses to support his proposition, or who declares his proposition to be so obviously true that it requires no support, or who relies on logical fallacies to support his proposition will likely see his proposition fail when it is brought before impartial judges.

The proposition here is plain, and it is an assertion of historical fact that is amenable to support and citation – Namely, that there have been “tests” run over a period of at last twenty years that have been “properly” done, and all of them have yielded no support for psychic phenomena.

The fair question is this: Kindly cite a few (let’s say “three” for starters) of such properly done tests. Something that was peer reviewed would be quite nice. And, no, Johnny Carson isn’t an acceptable reference, and neither is the Randi thing.

Both the results of these tests and a bit of insight into what, in the writer’s mind, has historically qualified as a “properly done” test of psychic ability, would be interesting to the reader.

If the writer’s initial proposition was indeed based upon facts, and wasn’t a mere statement of “faith,” then responding directly to this inquiry should be a simple matter. But we shall see…

What are you talking about? People claim to have psychic powers. When they’re tested in a controlled setting that doesn’t allow them to cheat, their psychic powers have failed them EVERY time. What’s so hard to understand?

Based on current understanding a conclusion cannot be made EITHER WAY, and that drives religious, er, I mean “skeptical” folk absolutely insane.

Nobody’s is claiming to have proved that psychic powers don’t exist. There is just not the slightest shred of evidence to support the existence psychic powers, and that drives moronic neurologist, er, I mean “folks with poor critical thinking skills” absolutely insane.

>C. win a MILLION dollars
If someone is a “true psychic” he doesn’t need Randi’s million dollar. If he can look into the future, he can get rich at the stock exchange. If he is telepathic, everyone will donate him everthing he need. If he is a telekinet, he can steal everthing…

>D. become the first psychic proven scientifically, and become famous
This will just stop a “true psychic” from stealing what he needs.

>E. make more money
see C

He trained himself for this with various mental exercises in a progressive manner, just as a weightlifter trains the body. His system works quite well, and taken to the extreme gives a person such great control over his mind that anyone of his era could have deemed it “supernatural”. These days it is “pushing the boundaries of science” the only difference is the semantics. The feat remains the same.

I’m a neurologist and I can’t explain the process at work behind such mental ability, though it certainly exists.

That said, I agree with MachineElf, you are all being extremely defensive (and offensive) over trite, niggling little arguments.

Try as he might, Plait can’t prove his claims any more than Simon Newcomb could prove man would never fly. Faulty logic is at work here. The reason the citations are not forthcoming is because THEY DON’T EXIST. Based on current understanding a conclusion cannot be made EITHER WAY, and that drives religious, er, I mean “skeptical” folk absolutely insane.

At this point common science has not moved on to the level where it can definitively prove anything except the dogmatic behavior of its adherents.

(p.s.- I’m surprised none of you have attacked the man based on his tag, a reference to DMT, one of the ultimate unsolved mysteries of our day…)